June 29 and 30, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-parents-in-the-us-arent-as-happy-as-childless-couples/

Why parents in the U.S. have the biggest "happiness gap"
By MARY ELIZABETH DALLAS HEALTHDAY
June 29, 2016, 9:58 AM

Photograph -- A new study of 22 industrialized countries found the largest "happiness gap" between those who have kids and those who don't can be found in the U.S. GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOTO
Related: The top 10 cities for working parents
Play VIDEO -- Will birth of your first child make you unhappy?


Parents in the United States are not quite as happy as their childless peers, a new report reveals.

The analysis of 22 industrialized countries found that the largest "happiness gap" between those who have kids and those who don't can be found in America.

That's thanks to the dearth of workplace policies enabling employees of U.S. companies to have a more flexible schedule or take paid time off for illness, vacations or the birth of a child, the researchers said.

"The United States, without any standard paid leave available to mothers or parents -- or any standard vacation or sick leave to support raising a dependent child -- falls strikingly behind all the other countries we examined in terms of providing for parents' happiness and overall well-being," said researcher Matthew Andersson. He is an assistant professor of sociology at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas.

For the report, researchers from Baylor, the University of Texas at Austin and Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., compared data from the United States, European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Russia.

The research revealed that countries with government-mandated paid leave policies have a smaller "happiness gap" between parents and couples who don't have kids.

"In fact, in those places [with leave policies], parents might be slightly happier," Andersson said in a Baylor news release.

After considering each country's economy and fertility rate and testing theories that could take a toll on parents' happiness -- such as unexpected births or large families -- the researchers found these variables were insignificant.

"Another striking finding was that giving money to parents in child allowances or monthly payments had less effect on parental happiness than giving them the tools such as flexible work time," the researchers said in the report.

The researchers said programs like subsidized child care actually improve the happiness of society as a whole, "with an extra happiness bonus for parents of minor children."

The findings were published June 22 in the American Journal of Sociology.



I’ve seen studies like this one before, especially comparing us with Scandinavian countries such as Sweden. The lack of financial security here in the US for working class families and the poor has been and still is commonplace, and the fact that most workplaces don’t give vacation time or even guaranteed sick leave very freely on the lower worker levels is well known. To give time off for maternity needs has only in the last 15 to 20 years been available for those who are not in the management levels. One of our other problems here is that many workers are classed as part time or temporary, and do not qualify for anything of the sort.

We in the US tend to think we live in the best country on earth, but in so many ways it falls short. The article states that money is less important than time off, but since both are lacking, the situation is just made worse. The loss of union power is a major cause of that in my view. Some businesses really are genuinely generous toward those on whom they depend for their profits. I will praise my favorite workplace in Bethesda, MD, the Calvert Group. They not only gave a decent salary, but benefits such as time off work and pension plans. Without a government mandate of some kind, I don’t see the average American business doing that.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivory-coast-gay-men-assaulted-us-embassy-photo-them-signing-orlando-massacre/

Gay men attacked over photo posted by U.S. embassy
AP June 29, 2016, 11:01 AM

Photograph -- A photo posted to the website of the U.S. Embassy in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, with the caption "LGBTI community signing the condolence book" shows Ivorians -- identities obscurred by CBS News -- signing a book of condolences for the victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting. U.S. EMBASSY IN COTE D'IVOIRE
Related: 911 written logs from Orlando nightclub shooting released


ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast -- Gay men in Ivory Coast say they've been assaulted and forced to flee their homes after the U.S. Embassy published a photo of them signing a condolence book for victims of this month's killings at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The photo, published on the embassy's website, shows the faces of six men with the caption "LGBTI community signing the condolence book." It was taken at the embassy on June 16, the same day Prime Minister Daniel Kablan Duncan and other officials signed the book in honor of the 49 people killed in the Orlando attack.

The photo has been widely shared on social media and two of the men said that in the days after it was published an angry mob punched and kicked them while shouting anti-gay slurs. The men spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for their safety.

Four of the six men, including the two attacked, said they have fled their homes under pressure from family and friends who had been unaware of their sexual orientation.

The men said they were not contacted before the photo was published. However the U.S. embassy did contact the heads of three Ivory Coast organizations that advocate for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, according to press officer Elizabeth Ategou. Those activists gave their approval, but they were not in the photo or at the embassy event.

Ategou said the embassy "deeply regrets that any individuals were attacked based on any kind of orientation they might have." She said the embassy was in contact with the men and encouraged them to report the attacks to police.

The head of one gay rights group who approved the photo, and who also insisted on anonymity for his safety, said he would not have approved it had he known those pictured would be identified so explicitly as members of the "LGBTI community."

The photo remained on the embassy's website Wednesday. Ategou said the embassy had received no requests to take it down.

Same-sex relations are not a crime in Ivory Coast, but there are no legal protections for sexual minorities. In January 2014, a mob ransacked the Abidjan headquarters of the country's most prominent gay rights organization.

The U.S. Embassy in Abidjan has strengthened ties with the country's LGBT activists following an Obama administration memorandum in 2011 that empowered "all agencies engaged abroad" to promote and protect the human rights of sexual minorities.



“Gay men in Ivory Coast say they've been assaulted and forced to flee their homes after the U.S. Embassy published a photo of them signing a condolence book for victims of this month's killings at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The photo, published on the embassy's website, shows the faces of six men with the caption "LGBTI community signing the condolence book." It was taken at the embassy on June 16, the same day Prime Minister Daniel Kablan Duncan and other officials signed the book in honor of the 49 people killed in the Orlando attack. The photo has been widely shared on social media and two of the men said that in the days after it was published an angry mob punched and kicked them while shouting anti-gay slurs. The men spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for their safety. …. However the U.S. embassy did contact the heads of three Ivory Coast organizations that advocate for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, according to press officer Elizabeth Ategou. Those activists gave their approval, but they were not in the photo or at the embassy event. …. The head of one gay rights group who approved the photo, and who also insisted on anonymity for his safety, said he would not have approved it had he known those pictured would be identified so explicitly as members of the "LGBTI community.”


“Same-sex relations are not a crime in Ivory Coast, but there are no legal protections for sexual minorities.” This statement put my thoughts on the track of a US history of hate crimes, and some half dozen articles are available on the Internet. For a listing and summary of some of those go to my single subject blog of today on this site under the title “Hate Crimes US Overview, June 29, 2016.” From the “crimemuseum” article below comes this statement: “Statistics provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation have shown that hate crimes are on the rise in America. In 2006, the number of crimes increased by 8% from the year before. These bleak facts show that despite how far society has advanced, hate crimes are still far from history.”

We in this country have found it necessary to make violence and discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, etc. illegal. Such law has been on the books for about a generation, starting with the 1960s due to the cultural uprising under Martin Luther King and others before him. That is what must be done everywhere for these crimes to begin to disappear. Human nature isn’t nearly virtuous enough to do it without the threat of prison. The same is, of course, true of all forms of the White Supremacy movement. Religionism is also rampant, now in particular against all Islamic people. We seem to be moving toward progress, though, with the Supreme Court weighing in on the antigay activities, primarily by Fundamentalist Christians.

Not all Christians are of this stamp, by any means, including even Fundamentalist Christians, but there is an active and growing movement among them that is primarily political and Dominionist in its’ focus, and especially in the Tea Party. The Westboro Baptist Church is the most well-known of those, and it is not affiliated with any other church or group. (See below.)

LGBT rights have not been so protected, but some legal perspectives are changing. A cake baker must not discriminate against a gay couple by refusing to supply a cake for their wedding, now, by order of the Supreme Court.

Within my lifetime there have been some events like this in the US news, though it came more in the form of three or four ignorant and violent men setting upon a gay man. In several of those cases, the man died from the assault. One was in a city environment associated with a gay bar, and the other was in a rural setting. It wasn’t such an event as that in the Ivory Coast, with a mob, but the one which I particularly remember occurred in a semi-rural area in which a gay man was found bound to a farmer’s fence post and murdered. There have been other single incidents like that earlier, also, plus the famous Stonewall Inn riot in 1969. Shamefully, that one involved a police raid on the gay bar.

Violence against groups has occurred in the South and elsewhere for years with as little as a short news article being said about it, with the result that laws intended specifically to stop it were not made. Until recently there has been little push from the LGBT community. With groups like the ACLU, however, that is changing.

The short article in www.crimemuseum.org discusses hate crimes in the US. See below. Also go to my alternate blog for today called “Hate Crimes US Overview, June 29, 2016” which contains material based on hate activity in general in the US, including some about what portions of our law have been brought to bear on it.


Westboro Baptist Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a Baptist church (unaffiliated with any Baptist organization) which is known for its hate speech, especially against LGBT people (homophobia), Catholics (anti-Catholicism), Muslims (Islamophobia), Jews (religious antisemitism), American soldiers and politicians.[3][4] The church is widely known as a hate group[5] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The church has been involved in actions against gay people since at least 1991, when it sought a crackdown on homosexual activity at Gage Park six blocks northwest of the church.[6] In addition to conducting anti-gay protests at military funerals, the organization pickets celebrity funerals and public events.[7] Protests have also been held against Jews and Catholics, and some protests have included WBC members stomping on the American flag and/or flying the flag upside down on a flagpole. The church also has made statements such as, "thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops," "thank God for 9/11," and "God hates America."[8]

The church is headquartered in a residential neighborhood on the west side of Topeka about 3 miles (5 km) west of the Kansas State Capitol. Its first public service was held on the afternoon of November 27, 1955.[9] The church was headed by Fred Phelps before his death in March 2014, though church representatives said the church had had no defined leader for some time before his death.[10] The church consists primarily of members of Phelps's extended family,[11] and in 2011, the church stated that it had about 40 members.[2]

The WBC is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination, although it describes itself as Primitive Baptist and following the Five points of Calvinism.[1] The Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention (the two largest Baptist denominations) have both denounced the WBC over the years.[12] In addition, other mainstream Christian denominations, such as the Methodist Church, Baptist Church, Reformed Church, and Evangelical Church have condemned the actions of the independent Westboro Baptist Church.[13]


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-stonewall-riot

1969
The Stonewall Riot

Just after 3 a.m., a police raid of the Stonewall Inn–a gay club located on New York City’s Christopher Street–turns violent as patrons and local sympathizers begin rioting against the police.

Although the police were legally justified in raiding the club, which was serving liquor without a license among other violations, New York’s gay community had grown weary of the police department targeting gay clubs, a majority of which had already been closed. The crowd on the street watched quietly as Stonewall’s employees were arrested, but when three drag queens and a lesbian were forced into the paddy wagon, the crowd began throwing bottles at the police. The officers were forced to take shelter inside the establishment, and two policemen were slightly injured before reinforcements arrived to disperse the mob. The protest, however, spilled over into the neighboring streets, and order was not restored until the deployment of New York’s riot police.

The so-called Stonewall Riot was followed by several days of demonstrations in New York and was the impetus for the formation of the Gay Liberation Front as well as other gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights organizations. It is also regarded by many as history’s first major protest on behalf of equal rights for homosexuals.


http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/history-of-hate-crime/

CRIME MUSEUM

Sadly, due to unforeseen circumstances Crime Museum closed its doors to the public on September 30, 2015. However, while we are not operating a museum in DC, Crime Museum will still operate the Natalee Halloway Resource Center, the Crime Library, law enforcement related education programs, and continue to be a repository for famous crime and law enforcement related objects.

For Artifact Donations Please Contact:
artifacts@crimemuseum.org

History Of Hate Crime
Home » Crime Library » History Of Hate Crime
4585446_orig

A hate crime is defined as any wrong doing perpetrated against a particular group of people. It is a form of prejudice directed at a group of individuals based on their ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious preference, or any other defining characteristic. Anytime two different groups of people come in contact with each other, there is the possibility of tension or conflict developing, which often leads to violence. Whether the crime in question is assault, theft, verbal abuse or even murder, the motivation behind it is based on the hatred for a group that is perceived as being different in some way.

The origin of hate crimes dates back to ancient civilizations. One of the earliest examples is from the Roman Empire, which was well known for persecuting various religious groups. According to several historical documents, Christianity was largely tolerated by Emperor Nero until the year 64 AD, when a tremendous fire destroyed a great portion of Rome. The Emperor felt he was being blamed for the damage, so he shifted the guilt to the Christians and called for anyone who followed the religion to be punished. This led to years of hate crimes against anyone who followed the beliefs of Christianity as well as several other religious groups.

Some hate crimes have been so tremendous that they have affected the entire world. One of the most notable is the Nazi’s persecution of the Jewish people. Hitler’s “Final Solution” called for the total annihilation of the Jews and led to building of full scale death camps. This dark period in world history, The Holocaust, resulted in the mass murder of millions of people. In more recent years, the act of genocide, or attempting to obliterate an entire ethnic, racial or religious group, has occurred in both Bosnia and Rwanda.

Hate crimes occur on a smaller scale constantly all over the world. In the United States the majority of hate crimes are racially motivated. These crimes primarily consist of intimidation, vandalism and assault. Statistics provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation have shown that hate crimes are on the rise in America. In 2006, the number of crimes increased by 8% from the year before. These bleak facts show that despite how far society has advanced, hate crimes are still far from history.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/istanbul-airport-attack-turkey-arrest-raids-isis-chechen/

Arrests as ISIS eyed in Istanbul airport carnage
CBS NEWS
June 30, 2016, 6:48 AM

Photograph -- gettyimages-543494336.jpg A wounded girl from the Ataturk Airport suicide bomb attack is carried to the Bakirkoy Sadi Konuk Hospital, in the early hours of June 29, 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey. DEFNE KARADENIZ/GETTY IMAGES
Photograph -- Three men believed to be the suicide bombers who attacked Istanbul's Ataturk Airport are seen arriving at the airport in Turkey, June 28, 2016. HABERTURK
Play VIDEO -- CIA director: Istanbul airport attack bears ISIS imprint
Play VIDEO -- Investigators working to identify Istanbul attackers


ISTANBUL -- Turkish police swept into 16 different locations across the capital city on Thursday, taking 13 people into custody on suspicion of involvement in the deadly attack on Istanbul's airport.

CBS News correspondent Holly Williams reports that consensus is building that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was behind the attack that left 42 people dead and at least 230 others wounded, and we now have a much clearer idea of how it was carried out.

It began when the three attackers arrived at the international terminal of the busy Ataturk international airport together in a taxi -- armed with automatic weapons, grenades and suicide vests -- and then split up.

Those tactics alone, according to U.S. intelligence officials, suggest ISIS involvement. CIA Director John Brennan didn't officially assign blame on Wednesday, but he came close, saying the carnage "certainly bears the hallmarks of ISIL's depravity," using an alternate acronym for the group.

CBS News has learned that there had been ISIS "chatter" in recent months indicating that the group was intent on targeting transportation hubs in Turkey -- including Ataturk Airport.

A U.S. intelligence source said Turkish investigators had located the taxi driver who dropped the attackers off at the airport, who said he didn't recognize the language the men in his cab were speaking.

U.S. sources have confirmed to CBS News that the attackers were not Turkish nationals, saying at least one of them was likely from the restive Russian region of Chechnya.

Turkish officials told news agencies on Thursday that the bombers were from Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, but American officials did not immediately confirm that information.

DNA tests are underway to confirm the attackers' identities.

There were further unconfirmed reports Thursday bolstering the theory that at least one of the attackers was from Russia, and may have traveled to Turkey from the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa in Syria. Turkey's southern border is shared with Syria.

Turkish media have published an image from a security camera that they say shows the three bombers arriving.

Williams says two of the attackers managed to force their way inside the building, armed with guns and hand grenades, despite a first security perimeter at the terminal door.

Reports in Turkish media say one of the bombers can be seen on security cameras dressed in a thick, quilted jacket -- in the middle of summer -- which should have aroused suspicion.

One of the bombers detonated his explosives in the middle of the busy arrivals area, another at a nearby entrance, and the third upstairs in the departures section, close to passport control.

Turkish security personnel managed to shoot that last attacker, leaving him sprawled on the ground before he too blew himself up.

"I heard the blast, so I thought there must be some bomb, because then (I heard) shooting," Martin Kemper, from Atlanta, Georgia, told CBS News. He was just a short distance away from that blast, waiting for a connecting flight.

The attack sent him and other panicked passengers running for a place to hide.

"It was terrifying, especially as you have these images, the bomb went off -- ok, you're still alive, but now they come and shoot you -- because you think of Paris, Orlando, you know, all this what you have seen," Kemper said.

Heartbroken relatives began burying the dead on Wednesday. Most of those killed were Muslims, murdered by terrorists during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

The attackers were not Muslims, said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, adding that through their actions they "prepared their place in hell."


“Turkish police swept into 16 different locations across the capital city on Thursday, taking 13 people into custody on suspicion of involvement in the deadly attack on Istanbul's airport. CBS News Correspondent Holly Williams reports that consensus is building that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was behind the attack that left 42 people dead and at least 230 others wounded, and we now have a much clearer idea of how it was carried out. …. CBS News has learned that there had been ISIS "chatter" in recent months indicating that the group was intent on targeting transportation hubs in Turkey -- including Ataturk Airport. A U.S. intelligence source said Turkish investigators had located the taxi driver who dropped the attackers off at the airport, who said he didn't recognize the language the men in his cab were speaking. U.S. sources have confirmed to CBS News that the attackers were not Turkish nationals, saying at least one of them was likely from the restive Russian region of Chechnya. …. Turkish officials told news agencies on Thursday that the bombers were from Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, but American officials did not immediately confirm that information. DNA tests are underway to confirm the attackers' identities. …. Reports in Turkish media say one of the bombers can be seen on security cameras dressed in a thick, quilted jacket -- in the middle of summer -- which should have aroused suspicion. One of the bombers detonated his explosives in the middle of the busy arrivals area, another at a nearby entrance, and the third upstairs in the departures section, close to passport control.


Sixteen locations in Istanbul and 13 more arrested – that is good work by the police. The death and injury toll here is horrific, however, and I wonder what level and type of guard systems they have at the airport. Russia (Chechnya), Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan – the suspected origins of the men -- are known for their warlike nature and primitive, tribal lifestyles, at any rate I consider it primitive. There is a certain virtue to being truly “tough,” though, and they are tough. ISIS is reaching out to so many parts of the world successfully, that it really is frightening to me. How is ISIS going to be subdued?




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-navy-investigation-sailors-iran-persian-gulf/

U.S. Navy investigation finds sailors ill-prepared for Iran encounter in Persian Gulf
CBS/AP
June 30, 2016, 12:15 PM

Photograph -- This picture released by the Iranian state-run IRIB News Agency on Jan. 13, 2016, shows the detention of American Navy sailors by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf, Iran. SEPAHNEWS VIA AP
Play VIDEO -- Iran releases video showing U.S. sailor admitting mistake
Play VIDEO -- Iran releases detained U.S. Navy sailors
Play VIDEO -- VP Biden on State of the Union, Iran's release of U.S. sailors
Play VIDEO -- Iran releases 10 U.S. sailors after detainment


WASHINGTON -- Weak leadership, poor judgment, a lack of "warfighting toughness" and a litany of errors led to the embarrassing capture and detention by Iran of 10 U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf in January, according to a Navy investigation released Thursday.

Six officers and three enlisted sailors have been disciplined or face disciplinary action.

The partially censored report also cited instances of unnamed sailors violating the military's code of conduct while in captivity. One sailor made "statements adverse to U.S. interests" during interrogation. A different sailor encouraged fellow crewmembers to eat food offered to them while being videotaped by the Iranians.

A sailor was said to have failed to uphold the code of conduct standards when he ordered crewmembers to cooperate with the Iranian video production and "acquiesced" in making an Iranian-scripted statement on camera in exchange for the crews' release.

Officials said that as a result, the Navy is stepping up training in adherence to the code of conduct.

The trouble for Riverine Command Boats 802 and 805, each with five sailors aboard, began even before they left port in Kuwait Jan. 12 on a short-notice, 300-mile journey to Bahrain, home of the Navy's 5th Fleet. They were delayed, unprepared, poorly supervised and ill-suited for the mission, the report said.

At least one sailor had been up all night with boat repairs. Their higher headquarters failed to arrange air or surface monitoring of the boats' transit. Such monitoring "would likely have prevented" the sailors' capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, according to the report.

The Navy's top officer, Adm. John Richardson, presented the investigation's results at a Pentagon news conference. He declined to go into some details, saying he must not be seen as influencing the outcome of disciplinary actions that in some cases have not been completed.

Last week the Navy announced the firing of Capt. Kyle Moses, who was commander of the Navy task force that was in charge of the boats during their mission.

Richardson said the scope of problems uncovered in the investigation was so great that the embarrassing episode will become a case study.

"This will be something we can mine for a lot of lessons," he said.

The lengthy investigation concluded that while the boat crews erred in entering Iranian waters, the Iranians violated international law by impeding the boats' "innocent passage," and violated U.S. sovereign immunity by boarding and seizing the boats.

"Those boats and crewmembers had every right to be where they were that day," Richardson said, even though they got there by mistake.

In addition to the range of problems that plagued the crew and the sailors' chain of command, the incident has raised questions about the Navy's preparedness in a waterway known to pose risks amid tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

The trip planning "ignored established crew rest directives and sound navigational practices," the report said.

The boat crews had planned their route but made an unauthorized deviation that took them into Saudi and Iranian territorial waters. More mistakes followed as both boats stopped inside Iranian waters while one crew was attending to an engine failure. They could see Iran's Farsi Island in the distance but thought it was Saudi territory.

Other rules were "ignored for convenience," resulting in the boats being "unable to present the appearance of a hard target or to defend themselves against (Iranian) aggression." The Iranians boarded the U.S. boats, confronted the sailors at gunpoint and took them to Farsi Island, where they remained overnight before being released after Washington intervened.

"Decision-makers at every level failed to intervene when the boats could not achieve minimum communications standards ... and when the (boats) violated Saudi and Iranian territorial seas," the report said.

In January, a statement posted online by Iran's Revolutionary Guard said that the sailors had apologized for the incident. However, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to "CBS This Morning," earlier this year denied that Americans made any apology.

"There's nothing to apologize for," Biden said. "When you have a problem with the boat, you apologize the boat had a problem? No, and there was no looking for any apology. This was just standard nautical practice."

While there was no official apology issued, Iran state television showed footage showing one U.S. sailor apologizing, calling the incident a "mistake."



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35300019

US thanks Iran for swift release of 10 Navy sailors
13 January 2016

From the section Middle East

Video -- One of the US servicemen thanks Iran for its hospitality and help
Photograph -- A group of 10 US sailors arrested for entering Iranian waters, Image copyright Sepahnews, Image caption The Guards published pictures of the nine men and one woman being held
Video -- General Ali Fadavi of the Revolutionary Guard said the sailors were not spying
Video -- The BBC's Jonathan Beale looks at why the US Navy sailors were released so quickly
Three Photographs -- Weaponry apparently being confiscated by Iranian authorities on Tuesday, in pictures carried by Iranian state broadcaster Irib News Image copyright Irib News
Iranian officer apparently pictured during detention of US sailors on Tuesday, in pictures carried by Iranian state broadcaster Irib News Image copyright Irib News
Later pictures published on the Revolutionary Guards' website showed the group sitting on a Persian rug, with the one female member wearing a headscarf.


The US has thanked Iran for the swift release of 10 US sailors held for entering its territorial waters.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the resolution of the matter was "testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe".

Republican presidential hopefuls had criticised the administration over its handling of the incident.

A deal on Iran's nuclear activities - which they also disparage - is said to be days away from implementation.

The sailors were detained on Tuesday when one of their two vessels broke down while training in the Gulf.

The incursion was "unintentional", a statement from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards quoted by state media said.

Iranian state media said the sailors were released into international waters after they apologised. But Vice-President Joe Biden denied this, saying the boat had had simply a problem and there was "nothing to apologise for."

The US is investigating how the sailors entered Iranian waters.

Thanking Iranian authorities for their "co-operation and quick response", Mr Kerry said: "These are always situations which have an ability if not properly guided to get out of control...

"This kind of issue was able to be peacefully resolved and officially resolved, and that is testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure, and strong," he added.

Iranian state broadcaster Irib News has published pictures of the sailors apparently being detained.

Iran-US relations pass a test: Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent

The tentative and still largely potential softening of relations between Washington and Tehran in the wake of the nuclear deal seems to have passed a delicate initial test.

The Tehran authorities have quickly accepted that the US patrol boats strayed into their waters by accident.

The process to begin lifting the sanctions imposed on Iran due to its nuclear activities is expected to get under way at the end of this week.

There are many conservatives and hardliners in both countries who would dearly love to sabotage the deal. Consequently both governments may well have been eager to get this episode resolved as quickly as possible.

Clearly the economic benefits of lifting the sanctions may have been too great an inducement for the agreement to be derailed now.


Mr Kerry called Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif shortly after the incident. The pair developed a personal rapport during the nuclear talks.

Those detained - nine men and one woman - were taken to Farsi Island, in the middle of the Gulf, where Iran has a naval base.

Conservatives in both countries have opposed the nuclear deal, under which Iran will limit its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

In the US, Republican presidential candidates were among those expressing outrage at the sailors' detention.

"Iran is testing the boundaries of this administration's resolve," said Marco Rubio.

"[Barack] Obama's humiliatingly weak Iran policy is exposed again," Jeb Bush said in a tweet before the sailors were released.

Donald Trump said Iran was "toying" with the US.

Iran's deputy nuclear chief has meanwhile denied a report the Arak heavy-water reactor had been decommissioned, which would be a final step towards implementation of the nuclear deal.


Restraint in Iranian media, by BBC Monitoring

Iranian state media's coverage of the incident has been studiously restrained and measured in tone.

The usual pejorative terms usually reserved for the US and other Western powers - such as "global arrogance" and "enemies" - have been conspicuous by their absence.

State TV and radio reports did highlight that the US incursion had been "illegal" and that Tehran wanted an apology, later reporting that it had got it.

The mood music was far less tense and confrontational than during the capture of British sailors in in 2007, with Iran insisting they strayed into its water - an accusation London denied.

Then, the Iranian media initially accused the UK servicemen of spying, and later mockingly reported that one of them had cried when his music player was confiscated.

Read the full media report

Q&A: Iran's nuclear deal

What is it? In July, Iran agreed a landmark nuclear deal with six world powers to limit its sensitive nuclear activities for more than a decade in return for the lifting of crippling sanctions. The US is confident the agreement will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran says it has the right to nuclear energy - and stresses that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

When is 'implementation day'? Iran will not see the UN, US and EU sanctions lifted until the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), certifies that it has fulfilled its commitments under the deal. Iran reportedly says the IAEA will do so this Friday. US Secretary of State John Kerry says implementation will take place "within coming days".

What does Iran stand to gain? The sanctions have cost Iran more than more than $160bn (£102bn) in oil revenue since 2012 alone. Once they are lifted, the country will be able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade. Iran has the fourth largest oil reserves in the world and the energy industry is braced for lower prices. Iran will also be able to access more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas.



Excerpt -- cbsnews -- “Weak leadership, poor judgment, a lack of "warfighting toughness" and a litany of errors led to the embarrassing capture and detention by Iran of 10 U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf in January, according to a Navy investigation released Thursday. Six officers and three enlisted sailors have been disciplined or face disciplinary action. The partially censored report also cited instances of unnamed sailors violating the military's code of conduct while in captivity. One sailor made "statements adverse to U.S. interests" during interrogation. A different sailor encouraged fellow crewmembers to eat food offered to them while being videotaped by the Iranians. …. A sailor was said to have failed to uphold the code of conduct standards when he ordered crewmembers to cooperate with the Iranian video production and "acquiesced" in making an Iranian-scripted statement on camera in exchange for the crews' release. Officials said that as a result, the Navy is stepping up training in adherence to the code of conduct. …. At least one sailor had been up all night with boat repairs. Their higher headquarters failed to arrange air or surface monitoring of the boats' transit. Such monitoring "would likely have prevented" the sailors' capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, according to the report. …. Last week the Navy announced the firing of Capt. Kyle Moses, who was commander of the Navy task force that was in charge of the boats during their mission. Richardson said the scope of problems uncovered in the investigation was so great that the embarrassing episode will become a case study. …. In January, a statement posted online by Iran's Revolutionary Guard said that the sailors had apologized for the incident. However, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to "CBS This Morning," earlier this year denied that Americans made any apology. "There's nothing to apologize for," Biden said. "When you have a problem with the boat, you apologize the boat had a problem? No, and there was no looking for any apology. This was just standard nautical practice." While there was no official apology issued, Iran state television showed footage showing one U.S. sailor apologizing, calling the incident a "mistake."


Excerpt – BBC – “Thanking Iranian authorities for their "co-operation and quick response", Mr Kerry said: "These are always situations which have an ability if not properly guided to get out of control... "This kind of issue was able to be peacefully resolved and officially resolved, and that is testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure, and strong," he added. Iranian state broadcaster Irib News has published pictures of the sailors apparently being detained. Iran-US relations pass a test: Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent The tentative and still largely potential softening of relations between Washington and Tehran in the wake of the nuclear deal seems to have passed a delicate initial test.”


The Pentagon is being too harsh on the sailors in my opinion unless the fact that they strayed from their path by some worse incident -- drunkenness, etc. Jonathan Marcus’ description that our two nations passed a “delicate” test is the way to look at the matter, and that’s a good thing, not shameful. It looks as though the US is maturing as a society and a world power.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-transgender-ban-ended-pentagon/

U.S. military transgender ban ended by Pentagon
AP June 30, 2016, 1:58 PM

Photograph -- U.S. soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division take part in a military parade to welcome their new command at the Arghandab Base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on Aug. 9, 2010. YURI CORTEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
23 PHOTOS -- Transgender celebs you need to know


WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon announced Thursday that transgender people will be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military, ending one of the last bans on service in the armed forces.

Saying it's the right thing to do, Defense Secretary Ash Carter laid out a yearlong implementation plan declaring that "Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so."

Speaking at a Pentagon press conference, Carter said, "Our mission is to defend this country, and we don't want barriers unrelated to a person's qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who can best accomplish the mission."

Under the new policy, by Oct. 1, transgender troops should be able to receive medical care and begin formally changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system.

And a year from now, he said, the military services will begin allowing transgender individuals to enlist, as long as they meet the required standards and have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months.

Carter's announcement comes despite concerns from senior military leaders that the department is moving too fast and that more time is needed to work through the changes. He said he discussed the plans extensively with his military leaders, and based on their recommendations, he made adjustments to the timeline. He said he has been told that the services now support the timeline.

Last July, Carter said he intended to rescind the ban, calling it outdated. He has long argued that the military must be more inclusive to bring in the best and brightest.

At the time he ordered a six-month study to include extensive medical and scientific research and discussions with other nations and companies with experience in the process. He extended the study because the military wanted more time. Officials told The Associated Press he wanted to insure there was no impact on military readiness, but over time he became frustrated with the slow progress.

The new policy provides broad guidelines for transgender service members. They will be able to use the bathrooms, housing, uniforms and fitness standards of their preferred gender only after they have legally transitioned to that identity, according to officials.

The new rules, however, give commanders the discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, including for job placement, deployments and training delays, based on the needs of the military mission and whether the service member can perform their duty.

The policy also allows commanders to approve certain accommodations when possible, such as when troops are showering. That could include installing shower curtains, towel hooks or allowing transgender troops to shower at different times or wear minimal clothing.

The military policy differs from civilian gender transitions, where transgender individuals often dress, live socially and work fulltime in their preferred gender during the process. Under the new policy, service members would only be able to do that when off-duty and away from their duty station.



“Speaking at a Pentagon press conference, Carter said, "Our mission is to defend this country, and we don't want barriers unrelated to a person's qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who can best accomplish the mission." Under the new policy, by Oct. 1, transgender troops should be able to receive medical care and begin formally changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system. And a year from now, he said, the military services will begin allowing transgender individuals to enlist, as long as they meet the required standards and have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months. …. Last July, Carter said he intended to rescind the ban, calling it outdated. He has long argued that the military must be more inclusive to bring in the best and brightest. At the time he ordered a six-month study to include extensive medical and scientific research and discussions with other nations and companies with experience in the process. …. The new policy provides broad guidelines for transgender service members. They will be able to use the bathrooms, housing, uniforms and fitness standards of their preferred gender only after they have legally transitioned to that identity, according to officials. The new rules, however, give commanders the discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, including for job placement, deployments and training delays, based on the needs of the military mission and whether the service member can perform their duty. …. That could include installing shower curtains, towel hooks or allowing transgender troops to shower at different times or wear minimal clothing. The military policy differs from civilian gender transitions, where transgender individuals often dress, live socially and work fulltime in their preferred gender during the process. Under the new policy, service members would only be able to do that when off-duty and away from their duty station.”


They don’t already have shower curtains and towel hooks? What could be the point in that? Whatever. Men in the military have to rough it, I guess.

I’m glad to see they have what looks to be a workable plan to proceed into the future on this matter. If I read this correctly, the military is actually paying medical costs for the transgender change. That surprises me, and that the conservatives in Congress would pay for it surprises me more. It is wise that they are looking at the way other countries have done this. There will still be massive outrage among Right-leaning citizens over this, though. Do you remember Corp. Klinger on MASH? I finally got tired of those shows, but I do remember Klinger and Radar fondly.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-americans-back-no-fly-no-buy-gun-laws/

Poll: Most Americans back "no fly, no buy" gun laws
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
June 30, 2016, 12:34 PM

16 Photos -- Why the AR-15 is America's gun
Play VIDEO -- Democratic sit-in over gun control ends


As the debate over strengthening gun laws becomes increasingly tense on Capitol Hill, an overwhelming number of Americans are backing one key firearm proposal: Keeping guns from people on a terror watch list.

A new Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday found that 86 percent of registered voters back such "no fly, no buy" gun legislation, compared with 12 percent that don't. And of those voters in households with a gun, 83 percent still back the proposal, versus 14 percent that don't.

A majority of voters also believe "it's possible to make new gun laws without interfering" with Americans' gun rights, 64 to 28 percent. Of those with firearms in their households, the number supporting drops to 59 percent, versus 33 percent that don't believe that.

More than nine in 10 Americans (93 percent) also think that background checks should be required for all gun buyers. Just six percent do not believe that. In households with guns, 92 percent of voters believe universal background checks should be instituted, compared to eight percent that don't. On a wholesale ban on assault weapons, 59 percent of Americans support it, compared to 37 percent that don't.

The poll also found that about 38 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the United States' most prominent pro-gun lobby, compared to 36 percent that have an unfavorable opinion of the group.

Quinnipiac also asked voters whether they supported Donald Trump's proposed Muslim ban, which the presumptive GOP nominee has seemed to soften on in recent weeks. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they opposed temporarily banning Muslims from the U.S. who aren't citizens, compared to 40 percent that backed the proposal.

Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,610 registered voters nationwide from June 21-27. The poll had a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.



The summary is that "no fly, no buy" … “without interfering" with Americans' gun rights … background checks should be required for all gun buyers” are approved by over 90% of polled citizens, even in homes that do have guns already. Interestingly, the opinions on the NRA were split almost evenly, so these commenters aren’t just Progressives, but a cross section of the US populace. That tells me that the Republicans in their hidebound stances against helpful gun laws aren’t even based in reality, except of course that their most important constituency, the NRA, wants NO restrictions! Only the issue of banning assault rifles got a less enthusiastic response, but even in that case almost 60% of that same 1600 people are in favor of it.

Many Republicans when they are in their closet praying are fully aware that there is no earthly need for assault rifles except in war. I was “yugely” glad to see that 52% of those polled were against even temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country. If we were to actually do these sensible things there would be fewer mass shootings like Orlando, not because there would be fewer insane or politically radical people, but because the most dangerous types of weapons would be more difficult to get and the nut jobs might actually be caught and prevented from acting. When we make those laws we should make the very effort to buy, sell or trade for an assault rifle a criminal offense.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/parris-island-south-carolina-marine-drill-instructors-investigation-hazing/

Marine drill instructors under hazing probe at time of recruit's death
By ALEX SUNDBY CBS NEWS
June 30, 2016, 11:30 AM

A group of U.S. Marine Corps drill instructors has been under investigation for hazing and abuse allegations for incidents dating back more than six months, during which time a recruit assigned to the group's battalion died at boot camp in Parris Island, South Carolina.

Fifteen instructors and their leaders are under investigation, the Marine Corps Times reported on Wednesday.

A statement from the corps' Training and Education Command unit to the Times said investigations dating back to November center on a training battalion where recruit Raheel Siddiqui was assigned at the time of his death earlier this year.

Siddiqui, 20, fell to his death in a barracks stairwell on March 18, just days after his arrival to the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in Parris Island, the Times reported.

An investigation into Siddiqui's death found that a drill instructor was "improperly placed in charge of recruits" while being the subject of an ongoing investigation, according to the Marine Corps statement.

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal, citing multiple unnamed Marine officials, reported that the instructor supervising Siddiqui, a Muslim, allegedly put another Muslim recruit into a clothes dryer and made "racially charged remarks."

According to the Times, at least two Parris Island leaders have been fired in connection to the investigations into Siddiqui's death.

The Marines under investigation have been reassigned to duties where they don't directly interact with recruits, according to the Times.


“Fifteen instructors and their leaders are under investigation, the Marine Corps Times reported on Wednesday. A statement from the corps' Training and Education Command unit to the Times said investigations dating back to November center on a training battalion where recruit Raheel Siddiqui was assigned at the time of his death earlier this year. …. An investigation into Siddiqui's death found that a drill instructor was "improperly placed in charge of recruits" while being the subject of an ongoing investigation, according to the Marine Corps statement. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal, citing multiple unnamed Marine officials, reported that the instructor supervising Siddiqui, a Muslim, allegedly put another Muslim recruit into a clothes dryer and made "racially charged remarks."


Why does our society have so many deeply sick individuals in it? I think our ultra-competitiveness and lack of emotional support is the cause. It produces sociopaths. This starts in the home, continues in school especially in team sports like football, and then in the military it reaches its’ peak. There is also the troubling lack of education which ends in the racial/religious harassment entering the picture.

Oh, yes, and on college campuses where the Fraternity system takes over to stop the students from thinking for themselves. Hazing really should be removed from group activities entirely. In this case with the two Muslim men it was deadly. If that drill instructor doesn’t go to prison, I will be angry. Of course, there’s nothing I can do about it. The idea of “reprimanding” leaders who do things like this a big part of the problem -- just like the cop who pumps five or six bullets into a young man for running. Nine out of ten times they are not truly punished at all, and knowing that such is par for the course they continue to do the same things over and over again. The more “conservative” the organization is, the more these things will occur.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-donald-trump-populism-rant/

Obama goes on "rant" about Donald Trump's populism
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
June 29, 2016, 5:21 PM

Play VIDEO -- Obama calls out Trump trade rhetoric
Play VIDEO -- Trump tries to capitalize on Brexit vote


President Obama went off on his own rant Wednesday at a trilateral press conference in which he disputed the idea that Donald Trump is a populist and that the presumptive GOP nominee instead promotes "nativism" or "xenophobia."

After reporters asked a series of questions of Mr. Obama, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mr. Obama decided he had something else to say in Ottawa -- he addressed the common theme of populism raised during the event.

"I'm not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that's been popping up is populist," Mr. Obama said, referring to Trump.

He said the reason why he ran for president in 2008, again in 2012, and why he will continue to work in some capacity in public service after he leaves office next year is because he cares about people and making sure every child has the same opportunities as he had.

The president said he cares about poor people, about workers having a collective voice in the workplace, about kids getting an education and ensuring that the U.S. has a fair tax system.

"I suppose that makes me a populist," Mr. Obama said.

Without identifying him by name, Mr. Obama dismissed Trump as someone "who has never shown any regard for workers, who has never fought on behalf of any social justice issues" and who has worked against providing economic opportunities.

"They don't suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes," he said. "That's not the measure of populism; that's nativism or xenophobia...or it's just cynicism."

"Somebody who labels us versus them or engages in rhetoric about how we're going to look after ourselves and take it to the other guy. That's not the definition of populism," he added.

Obama acknowledged that he went off on a "rant" and that he has that freedom now since he's nearing the end of his two terms in office.

During the press conference, Mr. Obama also addressed Trump's comments Tuesday in which he talked about withdrawing from trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"The prescription of withdrawing from trade deals and focusing solely on your local market, that's the wrong medicine. It's not feasible," Mr. Obama said.



“He said the reason why he ran for president in 2008, again in 2012, and why he will continue to work in some capacity in public service after he leaves office next year is because he cares about people and making sure every child has the same opportunities as he had. The president said he cares about poor people, about workers having a collective voice in the workplace, about kids getting an education and ensuring that the U.S. has a fair tax system. "I suppose that makes me a populist," Mr. Obama said. Without identifying him by name, Mr. Obama dismissed Trump as someone "who has never shown any regard for workers, who has never fought on behalf of any social justice issues" and who has worked against providing economic opportunities. …. "Somebody who labels us versus them or engages in rhetoric about how we're going to look after ourselves and take it to the other guy. That's not the definition of populism," he added. Obama acknowledged that he went off on a "rant" and that he has that freedom now since he's nearing the end of his two terms in office.”


So many of our “conservative” people absolutely hate Barack Obama. I can only conclude that they hate any bold positive attempt to make good changes and the undeniable proof that at least ONE black person has made good in this country. Changes that improve the lives of the poor and working class are good. Changes that give the very wealthy an almost intractable hold on the economy and government in this country, especially when it’s done through governmental action -- such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision – are evil, in that those segments of our society have no will to share with the needy at all. Every time they have to pay some taxes they complain as if it is going to cripple them financially. While I am not saying that we should all get our pitchforks and hoes and take them to Congress to force our way, I do totally sympathize with those who speak of a revolution.

Listen to this great work of musical performance by Judy Collins. In my opinion she’s certainly the best female non-operatic singer of my generation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkeXTlhX0OA
A Medley of four songs from Marat/Sade sung by Judy Collins.


http://www.judycollins.com/biography

Judy Collins

Judy Collins has inspired audiences with sublime vocals, boldly vulnerable personal life triumphs, and a firm commitment to social activism. In the 1960s, she evoked both the idealism and steely determination of a generation united against social and environmental injustices. Five decades later, her luminescent presence shines brightly as new generations bask in the glow of her iconic 50-album body of work, and heed inspiration from her spiritual discipline to thrive in the music industry for half a century.

The award-winning singer-songwriter is esteemed for her imaginative interpretations of traditional and contemporary folk standards and her own poetically poignant original compositions. Her stunning rendition of Joni Mitchell's “Both Sides Now” from her landmark 1967 album, Wildflowers, has been entered into the Grammy Hall of Fame. Judy's dreamy and sweetly intimate version of “Send in the Clowns”, a ballad written by Stephen Sondheim for the Broadway musical A Little Night Music, won “Song of the Year” at the 1975 Grammy Awards. She's garnered several top-ten hits gold- and platinum-selling albums. Recently, contemporary and classic artists such as Rufus Wainwright, Shawn Colvin, Dolly Parton, Joan Baez, and Leonard Cohen honored her legacy with the album Born to the Breed: A Tribute to Judy Collins.

Judy began her impressive music career at 13 as a piano prodigy dazzling audiences performing Mozart's “Concerto for Two Pianos”, but the hardluck tales and rugged sensitivity of folk revival music by artists such as Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger seduced her away from a life as a concert pianist. Her path pointed to a lifelong love affair with the guitar and pursuit of emotional truth in lyrics. The focus and regimented practice of classical music, however, would be a source of strength to her inner core as she navigated the highs and lows of the music business.

In 1961, she released her masterful debut, A Maid of Constant Sorrow, which featured interpretative works of social poets of the time such as Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, and Tom Paxton. This began a wonderfully fertile thirty-five year creative relationship with Jac Holzman and Elektra Records. Around this time Judy became a tastemaker within the thriving Greenwich Village folk community, and brought other singer-songwriters to a wider audience, including poet/musician Leonard Cohen – and musicians Joni Mitchell and Randy Newman. Throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and up to the present, she has remained a vital artist, enriching her catalog with critically acclaimed albums while balancing a robust touring schedule.

On September 18, 2015, Judy will release her first studio album in four years, Strangers Again. She invited a cast of icons and young talents to sing with her on this fresh collection, from Willie Nelson, Jackson Browne and Jeff Bridges to Glen Hansard, Ari Hest and Bhi Bhiman. Judy delicately soars over a revitalized “Send In The Clowns” and breathes new life into “Hallelujah.” She puts her indelible touch on songs by Leonard Bernstein, Randy Newman, James Taylor and more.

In 2012 she released the CD/DVD Judy Collins Live At The Metropolitan Museum Of Art which aired on PBS. This special television program was nominated for a New York Emmy and won a Bronze Medal at the 2013 New York Festival International Television & Film Awards. Based on it's success, in 2014 she filmed another spectacular show in Ireland at Dromoland Castle.Live In Ireland was released in 2014. This program also won a Bronze Medal at the 2014 New York Festival International Television & Film Awards and the program will broadcast on PBS in 2014 and 2015.

Judy has also authored several books, including the powerful and inspiring,Sanity Grace. For her most recent title, the memoirSweet Judy Blue Eyes: My Life in Music, she reaches deeply inside and, with unflinching candor, recalls her turbulent childhood, extraordinary rise to fame, her romance with Stephen Stills, her epic victories over depression and alcoholism, and her redemption through embracing a healthy and stable lifestyle and finding true love with Louis Nelson, her partner of 30 years. In addition, she remains a social activist, representing UNICEF and numerous other causes. She is the director (along with Jill Godmillow) of an Academy Award-nominated film about Antonia Brico ‐ PORTRAIT OF A WOMAN, the first woman to conduct major symphonies around the world ‐ and Judy's classical piano teacher when she was young.

Judy Collins is as creatively vigorous as ever, writing, touring worldwide, and nurturing fresh talent. She is a modern day Renaissance woman who is also an accomplished filmmaker, record label head, musical mentor, and an in-demand keynote speaker for mental health and suicide prevention. She continues to create music of hope and healing that lights up the world and speaks to the heart.



http://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484192533/bipartisan-disapproval-follows-bill-clintons-meeting-with-loretta-lynch

Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch
Heard on All Things Considered
CARRIE JOHNSON
June 30, 2016 2:06 PM ET

Photograph -- Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she discussed family, golf and travel with Bill Clinton — not ongoing Justice Department investigations. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
POLITICS -- Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton Met Amid Email Investigation


A strange thing is uniting Democrats and Republicans in Washington: the widespread disapproval of a meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Arizona.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch speaks at a June 22 news conference in Washington.

Lynch told reporters the impromptu conversation on her government aircraft in Phoenix on Monday centered on social issues, from talk of grandchildren and Clinton's golf game to their recent travels. Nothing came up, the attorney general said, about any ongoing Justice Department investigations.

But the chat took place in the midst of an FBI investigation into the security of Hillary Clinton's private email server, which she used to conduct government business as secretary of state. And that's creating a major appearance problem for the presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House and the top federal prosecutor in the country.

Democratic political strategist David Axelrod tweeted:

David Axelrod ✔ @davidaxelrod
I take @LorettaLynch & @billclinton at their word that their convo in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
8:19 AM - 30 Jun 2016 · Chicago, IL, United States

On CNN, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., praised the attorney general for her law enforcement bona fides but offered this advice: "I think she should have said, 'look, I recognize you have a long record of leadership on fighting crime but this is not the time for us to have that conversation. After the election is over, I welcome your advise and input.'"

“He put her in a very difficult position.” Stephen Gillers.

Clinton's political opponent in the race for the White House was less measured. Republican Donald Trump told radio talk show host Mike Gallagher the meeting was "terrible."

"I think it's the biggest story, one of the big stories of this week of this month, of this year," Trump declared. "I've been talking about the rigged system, how it's rigged and, you know, this is terrible ... You see a thing like this and even in terms of judgment, how bad of judgment is it for him or for her to do this? I mean, who would do this? "

The number two Republican in the U.S. Senate, John Cornyn, had been calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton email set-up since last September. In congressional hearings since then, Cornyn has pushed the attorney general about the independence of the inquiry and whether the White House was receiving updates on the status of the case.

Cornyn said the disclosure of the meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch only heightened his concerns. "'This incident does nothing to instill confidence in the American people that her department can fully and fairly conduct this investigation, and that's why a special counsel is needed now more than ever," Cornyn said in a statement.

From the standpoint of legal ethics, Lynch did nothing wrong, said New York University law school professor Stephen Gillers. Gillers said he didn't think the attorney general needed to recuse herself from overseeing the email probe. But Gillers took a sterner tone with Bill Clinton.

"It was the height of insensitivity for the former president to approach the attorney general," Gillers said. "He put her in a very difficult position. She wasn't really free to say she wouldn't talk to a former president," after Clinton boarded her plane in Arizona.

"He jeopardized her independence and did create an appearance of impropriety going on to her plane," Gillers added.

Gillers said he takes Lynch at her word that no sensitive law enforcement matters came up in the 30-minute airport chat.

But, he said, the episode "feeds the dominant narrative that the Clintons don't follow the usual rules, that they're free to have back channel communications like this one and that's true even if we assume as I do that nothing improper was said. The public will be suspicious."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said he didn't want to "second guess" Lynch and that her 30-year career in law enforcement should be a source of trust.



“From the standpoint of legal ethics, Lynch did nothing wrong, said New York University law school professor Stephen Gillers. Gillers said he didn't think the attorney general needed to recuse herself from overseeing the email probe. But Gillers took a sterner tone with Bill Clinton. "It was the height of insensitivity for the former president to approach the attorney general," Gillers said. "He put her in a very difficult position. She wasn't really free to say she wouldn't talk to a former president," after Clinton boarded her plane in Arizona. "He jeopardized her independence and did create an appearance of impropriety going on to her plane," Gillers added.” While this is another of the imprudent actions of Clinton, it’s a small matter, I’m pretty sure, since there is no proof at all that they talked about anything to do with Hillary’s investigation. Nonetheless, Axelrod’s statement below really “says it all!”

David Axelrod ✔ @davidaxelrod
I take @LorettaLynch & @billclinton at their word that their convo in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
8:19 AM - 30 Jun 2016 · Chicago, IL, United States